Active Slope Movements <br />Interested parties raised concerns about soil movement on the steep eastern slopes of the PUD <br />property, pointing to visual observations as well as testimony from neighbors who live downhill <br />of the site along Floral Hill Drive. Several of these residents expressed concerns about flooding <br />as well as foundational/structural issues stemming from active soil movements <br />Removal of Existing Trees <br />Interested parties submitted testimony arguing that the removal of established vegetation will <br />decrease soil stability and will potentially increase the likelihood of a landslide. However, the <br />applicant has demonstrated that removal of trees will only happen in areas of development, <br />which are largely proposed within the flattest areas of the site. No trees are proposed to be <br />removed within the conservation area along the east side of the site (with the exception of any <br />removal authorized between Lots 13 and 14 by Condition of Approval #6 related to the storm <br />sewer system), which is the area of the site with the highest landslide susceptibility. <br />Site Reconnaissance <br />Interested parties submitted testimony criticizing the reconnaissance methods used by the <br />applicant to obtain observations and field geological data. The South Hills Study requires an <br />"...adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development by a qualified <br />engineering geologist..." Mr. Gunnar Schlieder, Certified Engineering Geologist, concludes that <br />since the applicant's licensed geologist was not in the field to conduct off-site work and <br />reconnaissance, the applicant has not met the requirements of the South Hills Study. The <br />Planning Commission disagrees with this conclusion. The applicant's engineering geologist <br />signed and stamped the applicant's February 6, 2017 and May 14, 2019 geotechnical <br />investigations. The Planning Commission finds that a geotechnical investigation that includes an <br />adequate review of the on-site and off-site impact of a development and is signed and stamped <br />by a licensed engineering geologist complies with the requirements of the South Hills Study. <br />Level 3 Geotechnical Analysis <br />Interested parties submitted testimony arguing that the May 14, 2019 geotechnical <br />investigation provided by the applicant does not meet the requirements of a Level 3 <br />Geotechnical analysis as outlined in EC 9.6710. The Planning Commission finds that this <br />argument is moot because a Level 3 analysis is not required for this application. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Remand Page 11 <br />